BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

This is a spin-off from another thread.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20

I have zero proof, just as I believe y'all will have zero proof. I do however have evidence and, as has has been my life experience, we do not base our lives on proof but on evidence.

So, here goes:
For spreading seeds, The maple samaras (yea) Dandelions (boo).

For our bodies, The clotting factor

For navigation generations apart, The monarch butterfly
For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

Now support it, shoot it it down or offer up your own.

---

Intelligent design, as a concept, lacks key elements like empirical data, testable predictions, and falsifiability that define a scientific theory.

The examples you provided can be better explained through the lens of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by extensive empirical evidence.

---

in one of the other threads, it was pointed out to you how many millions of years it would take for just one successful mutation to move through a population. It was demonstrated that our universe isn't old enough to support the mutations that would bring us to the present time.

Biomimecry would seem to suggest that scientist want to borrow or adapt natures designs

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

This is a spin-off from another thread.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20

I have zero proof, just as I believe y'all will have zero proof. I do however have evidence and, as has has been my life experience, we do not base our lives on proof but on evidence.

So, here goes:
For spreading seeds, The maple samaras (yea) Dandelions (boo).

For our bodies, The clotting factor

For navigation generations apart, The monarch butterfly
For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

Now support it, shoot it it down or offer up your own.

---

Intelligent design, as a concept, lacks key elements like empirical data, testable predictions, and falsifiability that define a scientific theory.

The examples you provided can be better explained through the lens of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by extensive empirical evidence.

---

in one of the other threads, it was pointed out to you how many millions of years it would take for just one successful mutation to move through a population. It was demonstrated that our universe isn't old enough to support the mutations that would bring us to the present time.

Biomimecry would seem to suggest that scientist want to borrow or adapt natures designs

---

Just to confirm we are at least starting from the same time scale, approximately how old do you believe the earth is?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

---

I'm curious as to how you see this as showing evidence of design. It shows evidence that camouflage is highly adaptive, but that fact in and of itself says nothing of the origin (many times over) of camouflage. It can be just as simply explained by mutation + selection as it can by intentional design coming from a god, so why does this provide evidence for one and not the other, in your mind?

---

When I see great art, I know there was an artist. When I see great engineering, I know there was an engineer.

The stripes on a single zebra may help repell biting flies but, they actually bring attention to the zebra. The stripes on a heard of zebras cause confusion (dazzle) and therefore provide protection. This hypothesis completely works against the idea of a successful mutation.

---

That hypothesis completely, seamlessly works within the confines of mutation and selection. Are you sure you understand how different forces of selection work? I ask because you mention mutation a lot even though selection is much more important in some of the things you want to discuss.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

in one of the other threads, it was pointed out to you how many millions of years it would take for just one successful mutation to move through a population.

---

How big of a population and with what length of generation time?

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

---

I'm curious as to how you see this as showing evidence of design. It shows evidence that camouflage is highly adaptive, but that fact in and of itself says nothing of the origin (many times over) of camouflage. It can be just as simply explained by mutation + selection as it can by intentional design coming from a god, so why does this provide evidence for one and not the other, in your mind?

---

When I see great art, I know there was an artist. When I see great engineering, I know there was an engineer.

The stripes on a single zebra may help repell biting flies but, they actually bring attention to the zebra. The stripes on a heard of zebras cause confusion (dazzle) and therefore provide protection. This hypothesis completely works against the idea of a successful mutation.

---

That hypothesis completely, seamlessly works within the confines of mutation and selection. Are you sure you understand how different forces of selection work? I ask because you mention mutation a lot even though selection is much more important in some of the things you want to discuss.

---

How is this?

If the mutation provides better eyesight then that creature has the potential to be a better hunter/gatherer etc. and pass on that trait. However, when the mutation, like zebra stripes make the creature stand out more, they are more likely to be a target of a predator and less likely to pass on the trait. So, how does a trait that is an advantage for a heard work against the individual when it has to start with the individual?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

---

I'm curious as to how you see this as showing evidence of design. It shows evidence that camouflage is highly adaptive, but that fact in and of itself says nothing of the origin (many times over) of camouflage. It can be just as simply explained by mutation + selection as it can by intentional design coming from a god, so why does this provide evidence for one and not the other, in your mind?

---

When I see great art, I know there was an artist. When I see great engineering, I know there was an engineer.

The stripes on a single zebra may help repell biting flies but, they actually bring attention to the zebra. The stripes on a heard of zebras cause confusion (dazzle) and therefore provide protection. This hypothesis completely works against the idea of a successful mutation.

---

True story.

Nuanetsi Ranch. 1991. Tracker and I had stalked eland unsuccessfully and had a +1hr walk back to the truck. Path took us thru a small water paddock (fenced off water trough) that existed at the corners of every "camp" (+/-3000 ac pasture). We walked maybe 50 yards away from the paddock and the game scout stopped & pointed at a small copse of small mopane trees 75yds in front. ( The copse was maybe 10yds wide and 5 yds deep. None of the mopane trees were more than 10 feet tall, with trunks in the 2-4" range. think hill country cluster of small live oaks).

Tracker: "Mbizi lapa."
I pull out 10x mini Leupolds & scan.
Me: "Hapana Mbizi lapa." (no zebra there.)
Tracker looks back at copse, squints.
Tracker: "mbizi lapa." (Zebra there).
I check with Leupolds again.
Me: "Hapana mbizi lapa." (No zebra there.)
Tracker looks at cops, squints, then looks at me.
Tracker (in English): "Boss, there are zebra in those trees."
I skeptically lifted the Leupolds again.....and saw hoof lift and stomp back down. It was as if lights had been switched on in a dark room....1 zebra, 2, 3.....11 zebra in all.
Me: Hand me the rifle.
That zebra is on the floor in my home today.

Zebra might look conspicuous on the plains, but they are incredibly well camouflaged for the scrublands.....

I've been hunting my whole life and am better than most at game spotting. But, apparently, an African tracker's eyes are about as good as a pair of 10x Leupold mini binoculars.

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

---

I'm curious as to how you see this as showing evidence of design. It shows evidence that camouflage is highly adaptive, but that fact in and of itself says nothing of the origin (many times over) of camouflage. It can be just as simply explained by mutation + selection as it can by intentional design coming from a god, so why does this provide evidence for one and not the other, in your mind?

---

When I see great art, I know there was an artist. When I see great engineering, I know there was an engineer.

The stripes on a single zebra may help repell biting flies but, they actually bring attention to the zebra. The stripes on a heard of zebras cause confusion (dazzle) and therefore provide protection. This hypothesis completely works against the idea of a successful mutation.

---

That hypothesis completely, seamlessly works within the confines of mutation and selection. Are you sure you understand how different forces of selection work? I ask because you mention mutation a lot even though selection is much more important in some of the things you want to discuss.

---

How is this?

If the mutation provides better eyesight then that creature has the potential to be a better hunter/gatherer etc. and pass on that trait. However, when the mutation, like zebra stripes make the creature stand out more, they are more likely to be a target of a predator and less likely to pass on the trait. So, how does a trait that is an advantage for a heard work against the individual when it has to start with the individual?

---

All selection is a tradeoff. Genes that make cheetahs faster runners and better able to capture gazelles also make them less robust and unable to defend their kills from prey. To your specific point on zebra, you're referring to group selection, where the selective process is working at the group level. The idea is the same - a trait which confers better survival to a group sticks around because on the whole the group produces more surviving offspring than would other groups lacking the new trait.

The way you word this zebra question - I can't tell, but just in case, you're not imagining a dull, plain-colored horse suddenly acquiring a mutation that makes it zebra-striped, right? That definitely wouldn't be the case - a large suite of genes is needed to make such a change in color. Their would be no point in time when one zebra suddenly stood out dramatically relative to the rest of the herd. The evolution towards the full striping would be a bit by bit, step by step process. As an example of a species that "progressed" perhaps halfway through that process, look up quaga. Cool (but extinct) animals.

But anyways, mutations/ new traits aren't as simple as good or bad/ adaptive or maladaptive. If we discussed the conflicting natures of natural selection vs sexual selection, we could indeed cite a thousand examples of the two forces partially working against each other. Traits which may be bad for an individual still result in the passage of better genes and the selection of phenotype at the group level.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

It is on this board

ron.reagan said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

It is on this board

---

ron.reagan said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

It is on this board

---

I guess if the question is too difficult or inconvenient to answer.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic is the result of random chance.

He Hate Me said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

It is on this board

---

I guess if the question is too difficult or inconvenient to answer.

---

his answer was amazingly accurate.. and yet not

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

This is a spin-off from another thread.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20

I have zero proof, just as I believe y'all will have zero proof. I do however have evidence and, as has has been my life experience, we do not base our lives on proof but on evidence.

So, here goes:
For spreading seeds, The maple samaras (yea) Dandelions (boo).

For our bodies, The clotting factor

For navigation generations apart, The monarch butterfly
For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

Now support it, shoot it it down or offer up your own.

---

Intelligent design, as a concept, lacks key elements like empirical data, testable predictions, and falsifiability that define a scientific theory.

The examples you provided can be better explained through the lens of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by extensive empirical evidence.

---

The ID argument is based on the very same method as Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So if you are going to discount it as a theory you must do the same for Darwinism. Regardless, the question isn't even whether or not ID is a "theory", but rather if it is true, or at least a rational inference to the best explanation that is logically and evidence based.

"...better explained through the lens of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by extensive empirical evidence." - selection processes do nothing to explain the generation of new genetic information.

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Instead of a designer making camouflage they could have just not made us all want to murder each other. Kind of a doofus move.

---

You didn't address spreading seeds, the clotting factor or navigation.

So far, your statements are on par with a three year old stomping their feet.

Do you have anything positive you'd like to add to the conversation?

---

Which clotting factor do you keep referring to? You keep saying "the clotting factor" even though there's many clotting factors.

---

He's likely referring to the entire clotting cascade, both extrinsic and intrinsic. Such a incredibly precise and regulated system of multiple proteins, collagen, endothelium, platelets, and red blood cells, including all the stunningly complex biochemical reactions involved therein, which also involves inherent feedback mechanisms to prevent both the overactivity of the mechanism causing thrombosis, and underactivity causing bleeding disorders, thus achieving a perfect balance, truly belies the idea that such an unfathomably complex homeostatic mechanism could arise merely by naturalistic processes.

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For camouflage, the Great potoo and the zebra

I believe all of these show evidence of design and, there are literally millions more.

---

I'm curious as to how you see this as showing evidence of design. It shows evidence that camouflage is highly adaptive, but that fact in and of itself says nothing of the origin (many times over) of camouflage. It can be just as simply explained by mutation + selection as it can by intentional design coming from a god, so why does this provide evidence for one and not the other, in your mind?

---

When I see great art, I know there was an artist. When I see great engineering, I know there was an engineer.

The stripes on a single zebra may help repell biting flies but, they actually bring attention to the zebra. The stripes on a heard of zebras cause confusion (dazzle) and therefore provide protection. This hypothesis completely works against the idea of a successful mutation.

---

That hypothesis completely, seamlessly works within the confines of mutation and selection. Are you sure you understand how different forces of selection work? I ask because you mention mutation a lot even though selection is much more important in some of the things you want to discuss.

---

As been stated, selection processes do nothing to explain the generation of new genetic information that is driving all of it.

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

If you win 1000 hands of blackjack in a row, you can argue all day that because there are an infinite number of planets, universes, etc, and therefore such a result is inevitable in at least one of those universes, and that we just so happen to exist in that very anomaly.....but the casino is still gonna throw you out for cheating. Because you were. Because to rational people, ridiculous and fallacious "arguments from infinity" are not arguments in reality.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

Cite?

And get ready to defend that whopper - "Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans."

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

in one of the other threads, it was pointed out to you how many millions of years it would take for just one successful mutation to move through a population.

---

How big of a population and with what length of generation time?

---

It was calculated for a human population of 10,000 and a generation time of 25 years.

The same was calculated for fruit flies with a population of 1 million and a generation time of 1.2 months, and they found it would take 3 million years for a pair of coordinated mutations to become fixed.

Does that change your calculus in any way?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Instead of a designer making camouflage they could have just not made us all want to murder each other. Kind of a doofus move.

---

You didn't address spreading seeds, the clotting factor or navigation.

So far, your statements are on par with a three year old stomping their feet.

Do you have anything positive you'd like to add to the conversation?

---

Which clotting factor do you keep referring to? You keep saying "the clotting factor" even though there's many clotting factors.

---

He's likely referring to the entire clotting cascade, both extrinsic and intrinsic. Such a incredibly precise and regulated system of multiple proteins, collagen, endothelium, platelets, and red blood cells, including all the stunningly complex biochemical reactions involved therein, which also involves inherent feedback mechanisms to prevent both the overactivity of the mechanism causing thrombosis, and underactivity causing bleeding disorders, thus achieving a perfect balance, truly belies the idea that such an unfathomably complex homeostatic mechanism could arise merely by naturalistic processes.

---

This is it.
I cut myself and the bleeding stops. After the bleeding stops I don't develop a clot that impedes blood flow because that part of the system switch off. Now, I develop a scab, then new flesh, then the scab goes away. But when I get a new cut, it's all there to start the process over.

There's 20+ things being delivered, switched on, switched off, laying in wait. All of these things have to be in place for the system to work or I will bleed to death or die from a blood clot.

Everything about this shows the hallmarks of a designed system.

Show me the evidence that this system came about by chance.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The ID argument is based on the very same method as Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So if you are going to discount it as a theory you must do the same for Darwinism. Regardless, the question isn't even whether or not ID is a "theory", but rather if it is true, or at least a rational inference to the best explanation that is logically and evidence based.

---

I absolutely believe it is rational to believe that the universe was created/designed. However, I believe it is quite obvious that this is not a position that can be proved through scientific evidence (at least, with where were currently are in modern science).

What I do believe is an irrational position to hold is denying clear evidence that humans evolved over a process of millions of years. The theory of evolution by natural selection holds up, as it has significant evidence including fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular evidence, & bio-geography. It is quite literally one of the most established and rigorously tested theories that humans currently hold.

Quote:

---

Selection processes do nothing to explain the generation of new genetic information

---

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but there are several mechanisms by which new genetic information can be generated, including:

• Mutation (random changes in DNA sequences)
• Gene duplication
• Horizontal gene transfer
• Recombination

Whether humanity was intelligently designed or not, the above mechanisms for generating new genetic information is well understood and established.

Quote:

---

Cite?

---

I'll provide references for Bacteria, Plants, and Animals:

• Bacteria: Bacteria are capable of making collective decisions based on their environment through the use of quorum-sensing molecules. Reference: Nadell, C. D., Xavier, J. B., & Foster, K. R. (2011). The sociobiology of biofilms. FEMS microbiology reviews, 33(1), 206-224.
• Plants: Plants are capable of making decisions about how to allocate their resources based on environmental factors like light and nutrients. Reference: Novoplansky, A. (2013). Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. Plant, Cell & Environment, 36(4), 818-828.
• Animals: Rats are capable of making complex decisions based on past experiences and expected rewards, similar to the decision-making processes observed in humans. Reference: van der Meer, M. A., & Redish, A. D. (2012). Theta phase precession in rat ventral striatum links unexpected rewards to timing of actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(39), 12984-12994.

Quote:

---

And get ready to defend that whopper - "Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans."

---

I would be happy to do so:

• Evolution of the nervous system: The evolution of increasingly complex nervous systems has been linked to the development of more advanced decision-making abilities in animals. Reference: Niven, J. E., & Laughlin, S. B. (2018). Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems. Trends in Neurosciences, 41(5), 289-299.
• Comparative studies: Comparative studies of decision-making across different species suggest that more advanced organisms like rats are able to use more complex cognitive processes to solve problems. Reference: Eacott, M. J., & Easton, A. (2017). Comparative cognition for comparative neuroscientists. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 201-215.
• Neural mechanisms: Studies of the neural mechanisms underlying decision-making in humans have shown that the human brain uses multiple, overlapping neural circuits to make decisions, each of which is specialized for different kinds of decision-making processes. Reference: Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2019). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 42, 277-306.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

You think order came after disorder. That makes no sense. You think the laws of physics arose from what source after the Big Bang? How did that happen?

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The ID argument is based on the very same method as Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So if you are going to discount it as a theory you must do the same for Darwinism. Regardless, the question isn't even whether or not ID is a "theory", but rather if it is true, or at least a rational inference to the best explanation that is logically and evidence based.

---

I absolutely believe it is rational to believe that the universe was created/designed. However, I believe it is quite obvious that this is not a position that can be proved through scientific evidence (at least, with where were currently are in modern science).

What I do believe is an irrational position to hold is denying clear evidence that humans evolved over a process of millions of years. The theory of evolution by natural selection holds up, as it has significant evidence including fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular evidence, & bio-geography. It is quite literally one of the most established and rigorously tested theories that humans currently hold.

Quote:

---

Selection processes do nothing to explain the generation of new genetic information

---

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but there are several mechanisms by which new genetic information can be generated, including:

• Mutation (random changes in DNA sequences)
• Gene duplication
• Horizontal gene transfer
• Recombination

Whether humanity was intelligently designed or not, the above mechanisms for generating new genetic information is well understood and established.

---

"What I do believe is an irrational position to hold is denying clear evidence that humans evolved over a process of millions of years. The theory of evolution by natural selection holds up..." - any reason you're eliminating random mutation or similar undirected, natural processes from the theory of evolution? It sounds like you're conceding that the nature of genetic change that is driving evolution may NOT actually be random and undirected. If so, then you are agreement with what ID argues.

However, if you aren't, and you're asserting an undirected, naturalistic cause for the new genetic information is the driver of evolution, then no, the fossil record, embrylogical, anatomical, or molecular genetics evidence do NOT prove what you speak of. You are merely making an inference from the data, much like what ID does. However, ID suggests that the rational inference to the BEST explanation for the same data you speak of, is design. And it does much more convincingly. In actuality, a naturalistic explanation is DEBUNKED by the evidence you cite, namely the fossil record which does NOT show the gradualism that is necessary for random, undirected processes, and also by population genetics which, as it's been already cited, illustrates how the waiting time for just a single pair of coordinated mutations to become fixed FAR exceeds the time allowed based on the evidence from the fossil record. And these are merely two examples.

"It is quite literally one of the most established and rigorously tested theories that humans currently hold." - theory about WHAT, though? Origin of animal kinds from common ancestors, due to random, undirected processes? No, it doesn't. You keep saying this, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Regarding your last point, my point was not that we don't know how genetic information changes. The point was that selection processes (i.e. changes in climate, food source, etc) do not themselves drive genetic change. The mechanisms of genetic change you cite occur independently from them. An exception would be something like increased radiation or a toxin which causes DNA mutation, but then such a thing would be more likely to harm the organism than help. Also, there is genetic adaptability which allows minor changes in a species that allows them greater survival depending on the change in their environment, but it's important to note that this does NOT change them into a different species or kind, nor does it introduce any new genetic information. It is simply the turning on and off of genes already there.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Cite?

---

I'll provide references for Bacteria, Plants, and Animals:

• Bacteria: Bacteria are capable of making collective decisions based on their environment through the use of quorum-sensing molecules. Reference: Nadell, C. D., Xavier, J. B., & Foster, K. R. (2011). The sociobiology of biofilms. FEMS microbiology reviews, 33(1), 206-224.
• Plants: Plants are capable of making decisions about how to allocate their resources based on environmental factors like light and nutrients. Reference: Novoplansky, A. (2013). Picking battles wisely: plant behaviour under competition. Plant, Cell & Environment, 36(4), 818-828.
• Animals: Rats are capable of making complex decisions based on past experiences and expected rewards, similar to the decision-making processes observed in humans. Reference: van der Meer, M. A., & Redish, A. D. (2012). Theta phase precession in rat ventral striatum links unexpected rewards to timing of actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(39), 12984-12994.

Quote:

---

And get ready to defend that whopper - "Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans."

---

I would be happy to do so:

• Evolution of the nervous system: The evolution of increasingly complex nervous systems has been linked to the development of more advanced decision-making abilities in animals. Reference: Niven, J. E., & Laughlin, S. B. (2018). Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems. Trends in Neurosciences, 41(5), 289-299.
• Comparative studies: Comparative studies of decision-making across different species suggest that more advanced organisms like rats are able to use more complex cognitive processes to solve problems. Reference: Eacott, M. J., & Easton, A. (2017). Comparative cognition for comparative neuroscientists. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 201-215.
• Neural mechanisms: Studies of the neural mechanisms underlying decision-making in humans have shown that the human brain uses multiple, overlapping neural circuits to make decisions, each of which is specialized for different kinds of decision-making processes. Reference: Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2019). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 42, 277-306.

---

Your examples about bacteria and plants are not "choices" or "decisions", but rather just pre-existing, complex mechanisms that alter their properties based on what's sensed in the environment. A very good indicator of design, actually. Calling this "choice" or "decision" is a very loose interpretation of the word.

And do you understand that none of your three references does anything to show how complex decision making processes that we humans have evolved from the rudimentary "decision" making ability (LOL) in BACTERIA? Do you even understand enough of what we're talking about here?